sherm42

He also wrote All the President's Men and The Princess Bride. I don't just don't see how you can invalidate someone's entire opinion based on the fact that you didn't care for their past work.

audrey

Not to put words in your mouth...but by extending your argument the only valid criticism of a film would be by other filmmakers whose work is generally superior to the film/filmmaker he is critiquing. That makes no sense.

Most scholarly criticism, whether Art, Literature, Film, or what ever, is produced by non practitioners. I don’t think one has to be a great novelist or even a mediocre novelist, to provide valuable insight into an author’s works; the skills required for each draw from different talents.

It is one thing to disagree with Goldman; another to dismiss his thesis simply because you find his scripting skills lacking.

The Nature Boy

That's a fair point, but I think such an attack should have that support. I think I'd have much more problems with this "campaign" if it were made at the expense of an overwhelmingly deserving candidate. Otherwise, why the hemmiming and hawing? I missed the Goldman article in 1991 during that Oscar race, when Costner had been annointed golden boy over the seminal Scorese film, Goodfellas, one of the great directorial efforts ever.

sherm42

Still, one could argue that Costner was just as deserving. It was by no means a cake walk for Costner to get a three hour Western epic about Native Americans made. I'm actually on the fence over who deserved it that year.

Pants

Dances with Wolves is garbage, of course Scorcese deserved it that year.

mookyman

You did put words in my mouth...I preceded that part of my post with reasons why Gangs of NY was great. The comment on Goldman's own work was more of an afterthought.

Ok, Princess Bride was great. But the guy has made a habit in recent years of criticizing a formulaic Hollywood establishment that he is firmly a part of, probably more so than Scorsese or even Curtis Hanson. You both raise a good point in that a critic should not be held to the quality of his own art. Also, I don't think he provides any valuable insight. He picks at a few subplots but does nothing to get to the deeper aspects of the film. Whether he likes the movie or hates it, I think he really missed the boat on this one.

I don't really have a problem with the article because I disagree. When I read Pauline Kael's old reviews, I often disagree with them, but I admire and am captivated by her work. And, frankly, that is because it is better written than Goldman's. While a lack of brilliance does not discredit a critic's contention, it does make it less convincing.

Mutley Hyde

Dude! Magic rocks!

Kube

5 Cent, "uh no" is not a compelling arguement, nor is it particularly nice.

They separate the categories of Best Director and Best Picture because the Academy believes there is a distinction between the two. Some one can - in their mind - be the best director of the year even if their film is somewhat flawed.

Take Spielberg and Minority Report. Spielberg's vision of the future and his take on the various subjects explored in the film was fascinating. He created a unique and complete world. He's someone who could have been nominated for best director even though his film isn't as worthy as the other best picture nominees.

So, Scorsese can be best director even though the film isn't perfect or his best work.

Sunday Morning

oh, william goldman who wrote the crapfests that are:

the general's daughter
hearts in atlantis
absolute power
the chamber
heat (burt reynolds)
fierce creatures

and the tepid:

memoirs of an invisible man
year of the comet
ghost and the darkness
chaplin
maverick
the hot rock

CitizenKaneRBud

He also wrote some classic movies, but I don't see how it's really relevant to his argument.

Sunday Morning

there is no relevance.

Get Me Coffee

Gangs is a mess

DVDHO

The Oscars are a bigger mess just look at last years disaster,we all know who usually wins doesnt deserve it and probably the same with this year,people take these awards way to serious and I could careless who wins the Oscar because in my mind Martin S. should have won 3 of these.

Travis Bickle

I, too, dug William Goldman's criticisms of LA Confidential - his point being that Russel Crowe's Bud White was shot in the face....WHY'S HE ALIVE IN THE CAR AT THE END!. I felt the same way.

However, he's an ass! He picks very good directors to pick on, instead of the Schumacher, etc. His picking-apart of "Saving Private Ryan" was the most mean-spirited attack on a nearly-perfect movie. He didn't understand why the soilders at the end of the film didn't just leave Ryan and "his men". Uh, excuse me Mr. Goldman, but have you ever heard of giving a $h!t about others! These men were beaten down, and preparing to hold a bridge (a last stand). What kind of soilder just says "good luck"....better yet, what type of human being would?
I think Goldman is great at examining films, but maybe he should focus on his own screenwriting talents ("Hearts in Atlantis", "Ghost and the Darkness"....anyone?).
Now, on defending GONY and Scorsese. Every year, I watch Actors and Directors win the Oscar due to their "Career". A "youngin" gets nominated, and the pundits say "he/she is young and will have more chances". Are you kidding me? Like it's a cakewalk to even get nominated. Secondly, they will defend the likes of a Nicholson (who has played himself over and over and over.....except for "About Schmidt") and say that someone with this kind of resume deserves it for his/her career.
Now, here we are in 2003, possibly the most short-sighted awards nominees in history. They should just call it the December awards - "sorry Mr Mendes, your movie came out one-two-three-four-five-six freakin' months too early. Too f'ing bad! We are way too short-sighted to remeber your film, even though this is our industry!!!"
Point is this - why buck the trend of giving someone an overdue Oscar in a year when a guy who has put out one great film after another gets a shot at his! I mean, no one cried "foul" when Denzel Washington finally got his (nevermind he got a Supporting award for "Glory") for that piece of $h!t "Training Day". Everyone just polished his A$$ (including nausea-inducing Julia Roberts).
This is a year when Harvey "the Godfather" Weinstein can pull strings to give it to someone who actually has slaved away for years making his kind of movies.
Does this erase the errors of the past (Warren Beatty's "Reds" over "Raging Bull"). No. Not by a long-shot. But I can honestly say, out of every film nominated, and every director nominated, he deserves it.
......although, "Chicago" kicked A$$!
One more thing -- no more Oscars for Meryl Streep. She takes a $h!t in a film and gets nominated. ENOUGH!

Five Cent Deposit

You're right. "Uh, no" is *not* a compelling argument. Had I left it at that, you'd have every reason to report my post as a threadcrap, make fun of me, put me in time out, or whatever. That is why I didn't leave it at that. I wonder why you didn't quote my post. Did you read the whole of it? Perhaps you decided that since I wasn't being "particularly nice", the rest of my post wasn't worth reading.

Right after the "Uh, no", I went on to say that "The knocks against GONY, and specifically Goldman's criticisms of the films [sic], are all areas that the director is responsible for." It was the very next thing that I said. Later in the same paragraph, I said "A movie can be well directed and not be a great film- that is why there are separate categories for the awards- but GONY is not an example of one." See, you and I agree that Scorsese's direction *could* be worthy of a distinguished award regardless of whether GONY is a great film or a flawed film. Most people who understand a director's role would agree. Goldman offers specific criticisms of Scorsese's direction.

I'd like you to elaborate, if you have the time, on what Spielberg's "vision of the future and his take on the various subjects" in Minority Report are. You originally stated that "[The Academy wants] to reward [Scorsese's] overall vision of NY and his ability to capture the environment, the culture etc.. " I was not alone in my response that perhaps other technical awards are merited by these aspects of a film: Costuming, Production Design, et al. Of course, a director of Scorsese's caliber has his hands in everything... but if you could explain your statement in depth we might avoid any further misunderstanding. Goldman harps on Scorsese's decision to include a lengthy scene regarding a Sheriff election- you may feel that this is directorial excellence, because it provides historical setting and cultural backdrop, creating a well-crafted environment. But it is poor storytelling- it is irrelevant to the arc, and disruptive to the pace. The director's most important job is to tell the story by effectively balancing all of the elements- character, setting, plot, et cetera. Going back to your example of Minority Report, I think some portions of the film are directed brilliantly, while others are directed terribly. On projects of this size, since the director has so much influence in so many departments, one of his most important responsibilities is that of marshalling all of the creative forces in such a way that the entire film is cohesive. Segments that are directed well do not always add up to a well-directed final product. There are directors who can do comedy just as brilliantly as they do drama- but if they made a film that swung between perfect humor in one scene and wrenching melodrama in the next, they have failed in their larger mission. So yeah, Spielberg "could have been nominated for best director even though" his film isn't great. Any director could be nominated for any film. That is not the point.

Like I said, you are missing Goldman's point entirely. He never claims that the Best Director award should be linked to the Best Picture award. If you really feel like you need to remind us all that directing and producing are different pursuits and that the awards are distinguishable from each other by criteria x, y, and z, then maybe you should start a separate thread. If you don't feel like reading the article that you started *this* thread about again, but feel like making relevant obsevations, I'll pull some quotes for you.

all quotes attributable to William Goldman:

This year, more than ever, it's like there's a Byzantine plot to get Scorsese the honor.

The Hollywood parties he is attending must make him want to barf, but there is, glad-handing anyone in the vicinity who is an Academy member who might throw him a vote.

Miramax... is so all-out for Scorsese it's heart-stopping... and I suspect Scorsese will win, too.

But he sure doesn't deserve it- "Gangs of New York" is a mess.

[Scorsese] has never been secure with a story. It's that most crucial director's tool that haunts him... clumsy storytelling that frustrates us...

...do not blame the screenwriter for [the pretentious opening scene]. Because... Scorsese [authoritatively] chose to open the story that way.

The lack of a [secure story] is what demolishes the movie... [Many subjects] flicker in and out, never accumulating or connecting one to the other.

Two hours and seven minutes into the film, folks, there is a scene... discussing a subject never mentioned before in the movie... for 10 minutes, an amazing wasted length of movie time, and especially damaging this late into a pic, we deal with the election of the sheriff and his subsequent murder and Leo eventually challenging Daniel Day-Lewis to combat.

Ten additional minutes drudge on before they get to it.

[The fight was poorly staged because] Scorsese has hidden it behind the smoke of cannon fire.

...the movie ends [with a] shot of the World Trade Center.

I guess if you can't move people legitimately, you do what you have to do…

There you have it. I did some editorial snipping to punch up his most salient points- that Scorsese botched the film, yet will still likely win the most coveted individual award a filmmaker can receive.

My final thought is that you *seem* to be under the impression that if Goldman says that GONY is "a mess", that statement should be interpreted as a commentary on its shot at Best Picture status, not a legitimate criticism of how it was directed. You and I agree that a film *can* be well directed but not be worthy of a Best Picture award. By extension, a film could be worthy of Best Picture but not Best Director (though I see this as a less acceptable scenario for any given film). Nevertheless (what we think is not the point): what Goldman is saying is that GONY is so poorly directed that it is, in fact, a bad movie. He isn't content to say "Well, it was okay, but there were better films". He is saying that it is a bad film, and blaming it on Scorsese- after all, if a film truly bad it could not have been competently directed. We aren't talking about (in Goldman's opinion) a good film that could have been directed more expertly, or even a mediocre film that is directed as well as could be expected. What is so hard to understand about that? If you disagree, fine!

If what you are saying is that Scorsese should get the award because he made a good film out of a weak script, hammy performances, sloppy editing, and beautiful cinematography... then be prepared to back that argument up. I'd love to hear it. I'd also love to hear of other, similar cases.

Dr. DVD

"The movie ends with a disgraceful shot of the WTC."


While I do think that Goldman has some legit points, especially about Scorsese losing focus on the main story, I am a little confused by this statement.

Was he saying that the shot is disgraceful because it seems like a sellout "remember when" moment or because Marty should no better than to actually have a WTC shot in a film that is released post 9/11? The first I can agree with, but the second, I don't know.

mookyman

"Goldman embarassed himself with the article, which was mean-spirited, green-eyed and wrong." - Roger Ebert

Dr. DVD

Some people might think that statement null and void because it came from Ebert.

Pants

I happen to 100% agree w/ everything Goldman said. BUT, I too find his article mean spirited.

It seems that he has the arguements to make a good article, but he puts in the insults and some meanspirited comments because he knows that they will grab readers. And I think it works. Look at us still debating it

MurraySiskind

The quote is: "But the battle is still better than the way the movie ends, with a disgraceful shot of the World Trade Center.
I guess if you can't move people legitimately, you do what you have to do…" I would guess what Goldman is saying that the only reason the shot of the WTC is in the movie is to pull on the audience's heart strings. That the shot is used as a gimmick to move the audience in lieu of having a good story or involving characters move the audience.

ScandalUMD

I agree with Goldman on that one. Scorsese totally didn't earn that. I don't believe in editing the towers out of every movie, but it seemed like he crafted his ending with the specific intention of closing it out on the towers for no apparent reason other than a very cheap emotional manipulation.

It had nothing to do with the film; Scorsese didn't even make a token effort to connect that to anything else. He went to great lengths to close on that shot, and he did it for absolutely no reason.

Stoolie

That's an interesting article. I both agree and disagree. However, it's nice to see someone stand up and say what they believe, and not just on an internet message board, but actually in published print. Cheers to Goldman for having balls.

For the record, it is my opinion that GONY was nomination worthy only for artistic merits and Daniel Day Lewis. I do not think that it deserves Best Picture or Best Director, and if it wins, it will be the same story. "Marty finally got his Oscar." Just like Paul Newman for Color of Money. "Marty finally got his Oscar." Let's not mention whether he deserved it for this year's film.

And let's face it. The Academy Awards a long time ago stopped being about the best movie.

stoolie

sherm42

What's worse is the article in Entertainment Weekly with Harvey Wienstien where he pretty much admits that although Scorsese doesn't really deserve it this year, he is pushing to make sure that Scorsese gets it no matter what. Even going so far as telling the director of Chicago that they were backing Scorsese instead of him because it's Scorsese's time. Disgraceful.